Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The possibility of a redirect was mentioned, but consensus favors deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real evidence of notability, despite a huge amount of refspam. Created by an SPA, all sources in the article are primary, unreliable, routine, republished promotional/PR stuff, or barely even mention the society itself. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence of significant coverage. possibly SPEEDY under advert requiring complete rewrite to make it not spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not seeing any extensive coverage. Neutralitytalk 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per solely WP:PROMO. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As mentioned above, this is almost a candidate for speedy, and is simply part of a veritable fiefdom of articles surrounding a university whose students have a history of spamming the site with non-notable articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plausible redirect to the University, so not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). Has a notable alumnus, a member of the Indian Parliament. I see references in other books in GBooks to the "Aligarh Law Society Review" and "Aligarh Law Society Journal". Worth a mention at least. James500 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did initially try redirecting this (and everything else along these lines), but was reverted by the SPAs. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the correct solution to that kind of dispute. James500 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no other destination other than AfD at that point, you do realize that? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is the ordinary dispute resolution system. There is WP:3O, Proposed mergers and WP:RFC. The last one should be immune to control by SPAs as "requests for comment" are centrally listed and normally well attended. Not to mention that WP:SK was recently amended to prevent a "speedy keep" closure in cases where nominators at AfD argue for redirection without deletion (though whether consensus was assessed correctly there is disputed, and it doesn't mean the nomination can't be rejected in other ways). If you want a page to be redirected, it doesn't make any sense to argue for deletion. In any event that approach is prohibited by ATD, BEFORE, PRESERVE and R. The bottom line is that WP:R says that lack of notability isn't a valid grounds for deleting a page that is a plausible redirect, lack of notability being the whole point of redirecting sub-topics. The single criteria that we have for that is to the effect of "redirect is positively harmful". James500 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3O would do very little. Proposed mergers is only valid if I was proposing a merger, and since you're so up on the bureaucracy, you should know full well that most proposed mergers don't even get a single reply, and those that do rarely actually go anywhere. RfC is essentially no better than proposing a merger. Stop throwing around the alphabet soup as if I'm a new editor who doesn't know what they're doing. I initially redirected the page, yes, but there's no guarantee this is a necessary redirect. And even if it is, then there's also nothing wrong with deleting the existing spam and just starting a brand new redirect in its place... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to express my support for everything Luke said, above. In my view, AfD is a perfectly acceptable (and indeed preferable) avenue for discussion when an article on a not-independently-notable topic is redirected and an editor reverts the edit. Neutralitytalk 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.